Brent: what an idea the non-light version of the elemtary "LIGHT"? (a dark photon, eh? Like perhaps the nonexistence for existence? or non-math Platonism - all qualitative?) Needs a real scientific mind to think about it. Of course Hawking was such a mind and his brain-child is an inside-out parallel to "our" concept of the ((physical??)) world.
I find the "DARK" concept highly entertaining. (in your post the word "matter" surely refers to "shining matter". My question: would you include into (your) "spiral galaxies" also photo-photons? (I mean: elemental LIGHT particles imbedded into the DARK WORLD? That would uphold the parallel - unless those quanitative impossibilities between Hawkingian amounts of dark vs light may not reverse into the new imaginary world?) On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > If there were dark photons and dark charged particles forming atoms, then > dark matter collisions would radiate away energy and dark matter would > condense into spiral dark galaxies instead of producing essentially > spherical halos around matter galaxies. > > Brent > > On 11/12/2016 7:07 AM, medinuclear wrote: > > *[Philip Benjamin*] > *Implications of Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry Publications listed > elsewhere* > Laws of chemistry are universal and invariable and applicable to *atomic* > dark matter also. So are the effects under analogous conditions. Animal and > vegetable life (genetics) have extensive influence over chemistries. They > suspend them, change them or traverse them to produce an innumerable number > of products essential for life and adapted to the purpose of survival. Some > of these processes are known and many often unknown and beyond laboratory > capabilities. > > > > *Bio Dark Matter Chemistry:* > > *Light Matter *+ Chemistry--> Perishable Body. > > *Dark Matter *+ *Dark Chem*. --> Durable Invisible Body. > > Dark/Light Chem. Bond Dissociation --> Dissonance, Disease, Death > > *"Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research > and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012.* *ISSN: 0975-5241* * "Spiritual Body > or Physical Spirit? Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry & Your Invisible > Doppelganger". Sunbury Press, PA. February 2013. ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4* > *http://biodarkmatter.webs.com* <http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/> > > *Philip Benjamin PhD MSc MA* > > *Discover magazine *quotes a Harvard theoretical physicist positing > dark-life from dark-matter. > *http://discovermagazine.com/2013/julyaug/21-the-possible-parallel-universe-of-dark-matter* > <http://discovermagazine.com/2013/julyaug/21-the-possible-parallel-universe-of-dark-matter> > > *Researchgate *quotes physicist G. K. Ustinova of Rusian Academy of > Science indicating that* bio dark-matter chemistry *offers a new fruitful > direction of investigation in this enigmatic field.(https://www. > researchgate.net/post/Is_spirit_our_energy_Is_spirit_dark_energy). > > *http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/sep/21/is-dark-matter-mostly-dark-atoms > <http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/sep/21/is-dark-matter-mostly-dark-atoms>* > > *1. David Kaplan et al *(Johns Hopkins U) conclude from "new > observational and experimental data" that dark matter exists as *composite > particles *– atoms of dark protons and dark electrons that are acted on > by [*dark photons*] the dark-matter equivalent of the electromagnetic > force". This is based on the data of Neal Weiner and David Tucker-Smith in > 2001, > *2.* "*Daniel Hooper,* an astrophysicist at Fermilab in the US, affirms > that the atomic dark-matter model is really viable and that all the > lingering doubts "are resolved fairly easily." > > *3. Christopher Wells (*Kaplan's colleague) sees here the "additional > benefit of bringing dark matter more into line with the ordinary matter > that we are familiar with". > > *Note:* They claim that "dark hydrogen atoms could bind to form hydrogen > molecules and that the formation of these molecules could then lead to the > creation of "*dark stars* > > " or other compact objects and add that the interaction of dark photons > with ordinary photons could lead to emission lines in the spectra of cosmic > gamma rays". > > *Implications of Dark-matter Chemistry* > 1. Laws of chemistry are the same universally in *light-m*atter and > *dark-matter > *(only *ab initio* computational chemistries). > 2. Dark-matter chemistry/genetics begins *at the moment of conception* > just as light-matter chemistry/genetics leading to an invisible > doppelganger identical/eidetic to the visible body at all stages of human > development (*en-dark-body-ment, endarkbodiment*). > 3. Dark-matter body may be invisible to electromagnetic tools > including the senses in their normal state of existence. > 4. Dark and light chemical bonds have similar properties, interact with > each other, rotate, vibrate, oscillate, have reciprocal motion, stretch, > contract, have resonance structures, associate, dissociate, bend and break. > These cause weak changes in energetics resulting in emission of weak > photons known as biophotons. The sudden burst of biophotons at the moment > of death of plant and animal cells results from the breaking of the > coupling forces. OBE/NDE phenomena depend on the extent of > “bond-dissociation”. > > 5. Dark-matter bodies may be non-entropic, enduring for ever > 6. Enduring dark-bodies need no reproductive capabilities, hence are > asexual > 7. Enduring Dark-matter beings may exist and may be visible as an eerie > biophotonic manifestation at appropriate excited energy states by internal > or external mechanisms . > 8. *Dark-matter beings can indwell/permeate light matter bodies, > possessing and exhibiting any uncanny characteristic they may have.* > 9. *Biophoton *emission rates differing by an order of magnitude across > the taxa may be explained from the taxon-dependent weak changes in > energetics resulting from interactions of *light/dark chemical bonds. *Dark > matter bodies may be incomplete and less stable in animals and plants > Different biophoton emission rates across the taxa. That indicates > greater reactivity (or instability) at the source of emission; plant > cells emit 10 times more than human/*sq.in <http://sq.in>*/per *s.* Greater > is the instability, greater the emission rate. > > 10. In an early termination of pregnancy in humans, a durable and precocial > *bio dark-matter twin*, co-created at the moment of conception, can survive > the altricial *light-matter twin*. When decoupled at death the *bio > dark-matter body *will be relatively at a negative energy state by -E = > mC^2 where m is the dead body mass. That will be the magnitude of the > threshold external energy needed to raise the *bio dark matter body *to > any functional state (Physical *resurrection* > for example). *Best > regards > Philip Benjamin* > > On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 1:31:39 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6 October 2015 at 16:54, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On 6/10/2015 3:59 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> >>> On 6 Oct 2015, at 11:48 AM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I agree that duality is a bad idea. Local copies are one thing. Remote >>> copies with no possible connection are another. I do not know what it means >>> to say that such things reproduce the same consciousness. That is a claim >>> that can never be checked, and has no possible consequences. So Occam's >>> razor comes into play. >>> >>> >>> Do you doubt that mental states can be duplicated by duplicating the >>> physical configuration of a brain? Do you think the duplication would work >>> if information is transmitted from original to copy but not if the copy was >>> made without such information, even though the physical configurations are >>> exactly the same? That would imply that two brains could be exactly the >>> same physically but differ mentally, which contradicts the physical >>> supervenience thesis. This would be a dualist position. >>> >>> It is possible that you might be able to make copies -- you certainly >>> can for AI. A copy means that information from the original was used to >>> construct the copy. >>> >> >> Where I use "copy" you might use a different word. Let's define >> "doppelganger" as something which resembles the original arbitrarily >> closely but was not constructed using information from the original, while >> a "copy" is the same except constructed using information from the >> original. Using these definitions, are you saying that if you are replaced >> by a copy you will survive, whereas if you are replaced by a doppelganger >> you will not? >> >> >>> >>> If there are, by chance, other persons who happen to have, >>> instantaneously, the same brain configuration as you do, then there are >>> simply two people who share a momentary psychological similarity. Since the >>> environments are different, these two individuals will have had different >>> histories, and will rapidly diverge. So calling one the continuation of the >>> other is a bit arbitrary -- neither is a continuation of anything other >>> than themselves. If the similarity is such that the universes are >>> identical, as well as chance brain states, then it may take a little longer >>> for the divergence, but you still always have two separate individuals with >>> only chance similarities. Neither is a "copy" of the other. >>> >> >> >> You will diverge from whatever physical and mental state you were headed >> towards if there is a small environmental change, but this does not kill >> you. All future versions of yourself branching out from the present are >> valid. >> >> >>> >>> So I am saying that two brains could be the same physically, and >>> mentally, but still be different people. There is no duality here. The >>> physical supervenience thesis requires that physical and mental processes >>> track each other one-for-one. But similar mental states do not mean >>> identical persons. >>> >> >> If two brains are physically and mentally the same then they are at that >> point the same person, but if they diverge they are different people from >> then on. >> >> >>> >>> This is a consequence of the theory of personal identity. If you have a >>> tie for closest continuer, you have created two new persons. And it does >>> not matter what these persons think, or what conclusion they reach by >>> introspection. Physical factors are more important in such cases than >>> psychological factors. >>> >> >> "Closest Continuer" is not *the* theory of personal identity, it is *a* >> theory. >> >> >>> >>> One trouble with the idea of copies of you in other parts of the >>> multiverse is that most such copies will not be identical -- they may pass >>> through the same conscious state at a particular moment, but because they >>> are in different environments, they will immediately diverge. The only >>> sensible interpretation of such a situation is that there are other >>> independent beings who are similar to you in some ways. That is the case >>> anyway, and we do not necessarily believe in panpsychism. If there are >>> identical copies, then they necessarily exist in identical environments, >>> and anything that happens to you will also happen to them. So they do not >>> provide a means for your consciousness to continue -- if you die, your >>> identical copy also dies. >>> >>> >>> Copies that start off identical diverging does not present a problem. >>> There is a chance that you will experience any of the possible worlds >>> branching from your present one, and if you die at one location you will >>> only experience the worlds where copies of you survive. >>> >>> No *you* won't. Other persons who resemble you to a greater or lesser >>> extent might. But if there is another identical with you, they necessarily >>> die when you do. Quantum suicide is a no-brainer! >>> Recall that in quantum many worlds, the different worlds are different, >>> by construction. So continuations in the different worlds are always >>> different - they get different results from the quantum experiment. >>> >> >> If you are to be killed if a radioisotope decays, then one version of you >> is killed, and the other version is not. You survive as the version that is >> not killed. This is equivalent to being destructively copied into the world >> where the isotope does not decay. >> >> >> >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
